Dataset Information

Impact of Medicare Office Visit Payment Reform on Urologic Practices.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the 2019 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule, which modifies reimbursement for office evaluation and management (E&M) visits. This policy moves payment to a single rate for levels 2 through 4 office E&M visits, regardless of complexity. METHODS:Using a 20% sample of 2015 National Medicare claims, we identified urologic practices and their practice organization, academic affiliation, and degree of office focus (ie, proportion of revenues from office visits). Using billing data for each practice, we calculated the revenues expected under the current system and the new policy (both E&M payments and a new add-on code). For each practice, we determined the impact of new payment rates on total Medicare payments. RESULTS:We identified 2822 practices: 1372 (48.6%) solo practices, 1033 (36.6%) multispecialty groups, 322 (11.4%) small urology groups, and 95 (3.4%) large urology groups. Under the new reimbursement rates, the median practice would have a 0.9% increase in Medicare Part B payments (range -20.4% to +50.3%) and, with the add-on code, an increase of 6.8% (range -7.5% to +74.9%). Solo practices had the most heterogeneity, with a quarter losing at least 2.3%. The median multispecialty group would increase payments by 0.4% (range -13.7% to 50.3%). However, the 107 (10.4%) academic multispecialty groups had a median gain of only 0.1% (range -2.8% to +8.1%). CONCLUSION:Urology groups would, on average, benefit from the anticipated change in Medicare office E&M visit payments. However, solo practices with a high office focus and academic multispecialty practices may see reduced Medicare payments.

SUBMITTER: Modi PK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6443448 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Impact of Medicare Office Visit Payment Reform on Urologic Practices.

Modi Parth K PK Kaufman Samuel R SR Caram Megan V MV Ellimoottil Chad C Shahinian Vahakn B VB Hollenbeck Brent K BK

Urology 20190122

<h4>Objective</h4>To evaluate the 2019 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule, which modifies reimbursement for office evaluation and management (E&M) visits. This policy moves payment to a single rate for levels 2 through 4 office E&M visits, regardless of complexity.<h4>Methods</h4>Using a 20% sample of 2015 National Medicare claims, we identified urologic practices and their practice organization, academic affiliation, and degree of office focus (ie, proportion of revenues from office visits). Using ...[more]

PMID: 30682462

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceThe dialysis industry is highly concentrated, with large dialysis organizations now providing dialysis for more than 85% of patients with kidney failure in the United States. In 2011, Medicare introduced a new Prospective Payment System (PPS) for end-stage kidney disease, which bundled payment for dialysis care into 1 payment per patient. Trends in dialysis facility consolidation after the PPS went into effect are unknown.ObjectiveTo determine whether the introduction of the PPS in 2011 was associated with an acceleration in acquisitions and closures of small dialysis chains (<20 facilities) and independently owned facilities.Design setting and participantsThis retrospective cohort study included all Medicare-certified independent or small chain-affiliated dialysis facilities in the continental US between 2006 and 2016. Data were obtained from Medicare and the US Renal Data System and were analyzed in 2020.ExposuresThe PPS.Main outcomes and measuresDiscrete time hazard models were used to estimate the odds of acquisition and closure before the PPS (2006-2010) vs after the PPS (2011-2016). Analyses controlled for facility, market, and regional demographic characteristics. The average predicted marginal probabilities of acquisition and closure over time were estimated.ResultsThe proportion of small chain-affiliated and independently owned facilities declined from 29% (1383 of 4750 facilities) in 2006 to 15% (1038 of 6738) in 2016. Among 13 481 facility-years, 6352 (47%) were for profit, and mean (SD) census was 68 (59) patients. Overall, 3286 (24%) facilities opened during the observation period. The proportion of acquisitions that occurred each year varied from 1.1% (12 of 1065 facilities in 2015) to 7.2% (86 of 1192 facilities in 2012), while closures varied from 0.8% (9 of 1065 facilities in 2015) to 2.2% (28 of 1286 facilities in 2010), making both fairly rare. There was a 3.48 higher odds of acquisition in the post-PPS period compared with the pre-PPS period (95% CI, 1.62-7.47; P = .001). The odds of closure before and after the PPS were not statistically significantly different (odds ratio, 2.03; 95% CI, 0.61-6.73; P = .25). Facilities that opened during the observation period had a 7.2% higher predicted probability of acquisition compared with older facilities (95% CI, 5.4%-9.0%; P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study of continental US Medicare-certified dialysis facilities, small-chain and independently owned facilities retained a declining share of the dialysis market. Further research should evaluate the effect of continued dialysis market consolidation on patient access, health care utilization, and clinical outcomes.

Project description:ImportanceMedicare beneficiaries with Alzheimer disease and related dementias (ADRD) are a particularly vulnerable group in whom arthritis is a frequently occurring comorbidity. Medicare's mandatory bundled payment reform-the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model-was intended to improve quality and reduce spending in beneficiaries undergoing joint replacement surgical procedures for arthritis. In the absence of adjustment for clinical risk, hospitals may avoid performing elective joint replacements for beneficiaries with ADRD.ObjectiveTo evaluate the association of the CJR model with utilization of joint replacements for Medicare beneficiaries with ADRD.Design setting and participantsThis cohort study used national Medicare data from 2013 to 2017 and multivariable linear probability models and a triple differences estimation approach. Medicare beneficiaries with a diagnosis of arthritis were identified from 67 metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) mandated to participate in CJR and 104 control MSAs. Data were analyzed from July 2020 to July 2021.ExposuresImplementation of the CJR model in 2016.Main outcomes and measuresOutcomes were separate binary indicators for whether or not a beneficiary underwent hip or knee replacement. Key independent variables were the MSA group, before-CJR and after-CJR phase, ADRD diagnosis, and their interactions. The linear probability models controlled for beneficiary characteristics, MSA fixed effects, and time trends.ResultsThe study included 24 598 729 beneficiary-year observations for 9 624 461 unique beneficiaries, of which 250 168 beneficiaries underwent hip and 474 751 underwent knee replacements. The mean (SD) age of the 2013 cohort was 77.1 (7.9) years, 3 110 922 (66.4%) were women, 3 928 432 (83.8%) were non-Hispanic White, 792 707 (16.9%) were dually eligible for Medicaid, and 885 432 (18.9%) had an ADRD diagnosis. Before CJR implementation, joint replacement rates were lower among beneficiaries with ADRD (hip replacements: 0.38% vs 1.17% for beneficiaries with and without ADRD, respectively; P < .001; knee replacements: 0.70% vs 2.25%; P < .001). After controlling for relevant covariates, CJR was associated with a 0.07-percentage-point decline in hip replacements for beneficiaries with ADRD (95% CI, -0.13 to -0.001; P = .046) and a 0.07-percentage-point decline for beneficiaries without ADRD (95% CI, -0.12 to -0.02; P = .01) residing in CJR MSAs compared with beneficiaries in control MSAs. However, this change in hip replacement rates for beneficiaries with ADRD was not statistically significantly different from the change for beneficiaries without ADRD (percentage point difference: 0.01; 95% CI, -0.08 to 0.09; P = .88). No statistically significant changes in knee replacement rates were noted for beneficiaries with ADRD compared with those without ADRD with CJR implementation (percentage point difference: -0.03, 95% CI, -0.09 to 0.02; P = .27).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries with arthritis, the CJR model was not associated with a decline in joint replacement utilization among beneficiaries with ADRD compared with beneficiaries without ADRD in the first 2 years of the program, thereby alleviating patient selection concerns.

Dataset Information

Impact of Medicare Office Visit Payment Reform on Urologic Practices.

Publications

Impact of Medicare Office Visit Payment Reform on Urologic Practices.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets